Does "three fifths of all other Persons" still apply?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:04:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Does "three fifths of all other Persons" still apply?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Does "three fifths of all other Persons" still apply?  (Read 6492 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 22, 2006, 03:18:01 PM »

Article I Section 2 Clause 3 Sentence 1 states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It normally gets pointed out in annotated copies of the Constitution that this sentence got replaced by Amendment XIV Clause 2 Sentemnce 1:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

However, note that it does not mention direct taxes, so the original sentence still applies for them.  This of course raises the question are there any other Persons it would apply to?  Would persons sentenced to a life sentence or the death penalty count as only 3/5ths?  How about illegal aliens?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2006, 11:43:05 AM »

Illegal aliens certainly are free. Huh
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2006, 12:00:58 PM »


Then perhaps they should count as "Indians not taxed"?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2006, 12:08:57 PM »

Why? They do pay sales taxes, and are not members of domestic dependent nations.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2006, 06:00:06 PM »

No. Slavery is no longer legal, thus there is no longer the distinction between free and unfree persons.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2006, 08:07:34 PM »

No. Slavery is no longer legal, thus there is no longer the distinction between free and unfree persons.

I suppose it depends on how you diagram the sentence. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."  If you diagram it so that the clause "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"  is applying to just  "involuntary servitude" you'd be right, but grammatically it woul dbe just as proper to have it apply to the whole of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude", in which case it would be constitutional for people to be sentenced to slavery as a punishment for a crime, they just couldn't be born into the peculiar institution as was the case pre-1865.

However, even if slavery per se is unconstitutional, Article I Section 2 Clause 3 Sentence 1 includes only people who are bound to service for a term of years among the definition of who count as a full person for purposes of apportionment.  I think it makes every sense to consider people who are bound to service on some basis other than a term of years (i.e. people who are serving a life sentence) to be considered as falling within the definition of other persons and thus counting as only 3/5 of a free person for apportionment.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2006, 08:36:22 PM »


Can I stop paying taxes?  Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2006, 07:01:56 AM »

No. Slavery is no longer legal, thus there is no longer the distinction between free and unfree persons.

I suppose it depends on how you diagram the sentence. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."  If you diagram it so that the clause "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"  is applying to just  "involuntary servitude" you'd be right, but grammatically it woul dbe just as proper to have it apply to the whole of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude", in which case it would be constitutional for people to be sentenced to slavery as a punishment for a crime, they just couldn't be born into the peculiar institution as was the case pre-1865.

Ice T › Ya Shoulda Killed Me Last Year (1:41) [last track on O.G.Original Gangster album. Not a song really, not even a rap, just spoken words over a sinister beat):

"Before i go id like to say a few things. this album was completed on january 15th 1991. By now the war has probably started and a whole bunch of people have probably died out there in the desert over some bulls**t. Theres a war goin on right now in my neighborhood but i cant really determine which one is worse..I think the one that we are all fightin is f**ked up and thats the war inside our brains you know. but uh i feel bad about all the brothers and sisters gettin pulled right out of their neighborhoods, all the cities and small towns in america, that go over there and fight for that bulls**t that most of them dont really have anything to do with. So i gotta send peace out to em. Also peace out to all my homies in jail, brothers that are dead locked up right here on earth..talkin about the brothers in soledad, san quentin, all the way up in pelican bay, tracy, chino, and all my homeboys out there in the east coast lockdown facilities. Im talkin about clinton, rikers, joliet, you know every prison in the whole f**kin world man, thats like you know all bull**it you know. they say slavery has been abolished except for the convicted felon yall need to think about that. that lets you know what the f**kin constitution is really about you know. Alot of my homeboys have been locked down
my whole entire career and thats some bulls**t. So for them from the Rhyme Syndicate and Ice-T id like to send this special shout out...F**k the police, f**k the FBI, f**k the DEA, f**k the CIA, f**k Tipper Gore, Bush and his crippled bitch. This is Ice-T im out of here, told ya you shoulda killed me last year.. "

(Yeah well, just read the bolded part if you don't want your thread hijacked Wink )
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2006, 02:34:34 AM »

Article I Section 2 Clause 3 Sentence 1 states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.[/b]

It normally gets pointed out in annotated copies of the Constitution that this sentence got replaced by Amendment XIV Clause 2 Sentemnce 1:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.[/b]

However, note that it does not mention direct taxes, so the original sentence still applies for them.  This of course raises the question are there any other Persons it would apply to?  Would persons sentenced to a life sentence or the death penalty count as only 3/5ths?  How about illegal aliens?

I find it odd that no one ever mentions where the 3/5 of a person clause came from.
The Southern State's wanted their slaves to be counted as people, the Northern State's knew that this would greatly increase the population of the Southern State's and wanted the slaves to not be counted at all. Thus, the 3/5's compromise.
Another question that arises from this, since "Indian's" are counted in the Census, are they subtracted from State totals before apportioning Representatives?
From a legal standpoint, the 3/5 of "other persons" could be interpretted to include illegal imigrants. Would make an interesting court case. Where's a good lawyer?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2006, 02:30:03 PM »

Article I Section 2 Clause 3 Sentence 1 states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.[/b]

It normally gets pointed out in annotated copies of the Constitution that this sentence got replaced by Amendment XIV Clause 2 Sentemnce 1:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.[/b]

However, note that it does not mention direct taxes, so the original sentence still applies for them.  This of course raises the question are there any other Persons it would apply to?  Would persons sentenced to a life sentence or the death penalty count as only 3/5ths?  How about illegal aliens?

I find it odd that no one ever mentions where the 3/5 of a person clause came from.
The Southern State's wanted their slaves to be counted as people, the Northern State's knew that this would greatly increase the population of the Southern State's and wanted the slaves to not be counted at all. Thus, the 3/5's compromise.
Another question that arises from this, since "Indian's" are counted in the Census, are they subtracted from State totals before apportioning Representatives?
From a legal standpoint, the 3/5 of "other persons" could be interpretted to include illegal imigrants. Would make an interesting court case. Where's a good lawyer?
There are no Indians Not Taxed (in the census definition - ie, Indians habitually residing outside the part of the country reachable for the IRS, rather than the possible definition of Indians who paid no income tax last year)
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2006, 06:25:25 PM »

Since most illegal aliens are mestizos then yes they woudl fall under "indians not taxed".
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2006, 01:29:43 PM »


You own a mini-mart/gas station?

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2007, 08:08:23 PM »

Clearly 3/5ths of a person must remain in the Constitution as the framers intended.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2007, 11:24:20 PM »

And this would be why I couldn't personally care less about Constitutional or legal studies.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2007, 12:58:34 AM »

However, note that it does not mention direct taxes, so the original sentence still applies for them.  This of course raises the question are there any other Persons it would apply to?  Would persons sentenced to a life sentence or the death penalty count as only 3/5ths?  How about illegal aliens?
Direct taxes are those levied directly on the states.  If Congressed a direct tax for $435 million, California would be sent a bill for approximately $53 million, and Wyoming would get a bill for about $1 million.  (Note: there is no reason that the apportionment couldn't be finer than 1/435).

I think direct taxes have only been levied once or twice.  The second time was during the Civil War, and the seceding states never paid.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2007, 08:44:17 AM »

Direct taxes are those levied directly on the states.  If Congressed a direct tax for $435 million, California would be sent a bill for approximately $53 million, and Wyoming would get a bill for about $1 million.
Not quite. Direct taxes are not bills sent to the states, to be met as the legislature of each state sees fit. On the contrary, Congress itself determines how the tax shall be imposed and collected; in doing so, it must merely adjust the formulae used to ensure that the amount raised from each state must be proportional to its population. If necessary, it may impose different rates of taxation in different states. 

For example, Congress imposed the first direct tax in 1798; one can find the text here. The Act imposed a tax on land, property, and slaves. The rate payable in each state was equal to a national baseline rate, plus an adjustment that ensured that the state would pay a share that was actually proportional to its population (in accordance with the Constitution). The tax was to be collected by the "supervisors, inspectors and collectors of the internal revenues of the United States."

So the true difference between direct and indirect taxes is not that the federal government imposes and collects the latter, whereas the state governments impose and collect the latter on behalf of the nation. The true difference is that direct taxes are taxes upon individuals and property, whereas indirect taxes are taxes upon anything else (e.g., transactions).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2007, 12:22:47 AM »

Direct taxes are those levied directly on the states.  If Congressed a direct tax for $435 million, California would be sent a bill for approximately $53 million, and Wyoming would get a bill for about $1 million.
Not quite. Direct taxes are not bills sent to the states, to be met as the legislature of each state sees fit. On the contrary, Congress itself determines how the tax shall be imposed and collected; in doing so, it must merely adjust the formulae used to ensure that the amount raised from each state must be proportional to its population. If necessary, it may impose different rates of taxation in different states. 

For example, Congress imposed the first direct tax in 1798; one can find the text here.

Thanks.  I had seen a seen a mention in the debate on the post-Civil War amendments, and I got the impression that the Confederate States had not paid their levy, as opposed to the US not being able to collect the direct taxes.  Looking up the direct tax legislation (it was either 1861 or 1862) it was similar in form to the 1798 legislation in that the collection was from individuals.

IIRC, there was some discussion of the 3/5 rule in the debate of an early version of the 14th Amendment, and it was stated that the 3/5 rule in the original Constitution was moot due to the 13th Amendment.  But in addition, it was intentional that the 14th Amendmendent would introduce a difference between the apportionment of direct taxes and apportionment of representatives.  But this difference is because of the reduction of representation that can be imposed under the 14th Amendment; which would not apply to direct taxes.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2007, 09:15:38 AM »

Why not apply it? It would reduce the south's representation.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2007, 05:52:33 PM »

No. Slavery is no longer legal, thus there is no longer the distinction between free and unfree persons.
^^^^^^^^^^

So why have they never taken it out?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2007, 10:34:38 AM »

No. Slavery is no longer legal, thus there is no longer the distinction between free and unfree persons.
^^^^^^^^^^
So why have they never taken it out?
When James Madison originally introduced what is now known as the Bill of Rights (and the 27th Amendment), he proposed that the changes be made in line within the text.  Congress changed them to separate articles added on to the end.  This practice has been followed ever since, so you have to follow the order of changes to understand the entire text.

The part of the 14th amendment that provides for apportionment of representatives also has the penalty for exclusion of voters.  Congress probably didn't want that to work for direct taxes.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.239 seconds with 12 queries.